Mechanics Arms 1930 - 1934

Folkestone Express 3-1-1931

Thursday, January 1^st: Before Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mr. W. Smith, Dr. W.W. Nuttall and Alderman T.S. Franks.

Marcus Barthropp, of London, was charged that on the 2^nd August, 1930, at Folkestone, he did unlawfully by certain false pretences with intent to defraud, obtain from Walter Grant the sum of £3 10s., and further that on the same day he obtained by dales pretences with intent to defraud from Walter Harbord the sum of £17 10s.

Mr. Walter Grant, the licence holder of the Mechanics Arms, 37, St. John`s Street, Folkestone, said he recognised the prisoner, who he first saw when he came into his bar on Friday evening of August 1sr last. It would be between 9 and 9.30 p.m. He was with a friend and a chauffeur. They had drinks and the defendant then asked him if he could put his friend and the chauffeur up for the night. He told him he was staying with his sister-in-law, Mrs. Chadwick, in St. John`s Street. He asked him what his business was, and he said “Don`t you know me? I`m Mr. Bartropp, the racehorse owner and trainer”. He referred him to Mrs. Chadwick, but he did not see her and took prisoner`s word. He made arrangements and put the two men up. The prisoner then left. The next day the defendant came in and settled up in cash. They all went out then for a stroll on the beach, and the chauffeur came back first. Later on the prisoner returned with his friend. Prisoner asked him for the loan of pen and ink, which he provided. He next saw the prisoner take a cheque from his coat pocket and write upon it, and then asked him if he would oblige him by changing it.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the cheques was dated 31^st July, 1930, and was on the London Joint Midaland Bank Ltd., Kensington. It was for £3 10s., and the signature looked like F.W. Morton. The name A.M. Barthropp was also on the cheque.

Witness, continuing, said he asked the prisoner if it was a genuine cheque and repeated the question twice after that and he said “Yes, it is quite in order and will be met”. He paid the prisoner £3 10s. and took the cheque. The prisoner wrote on the front of the cheque, but he could not say whether the prisoner wrote on the back. He was busy at the time and did not take much notice of what was written on the cheque. He thought F.W. Morton was a friend of the prisoner. When he took the cheque he believed it was genuine and that it would be met on presentation. He took the cheque to Lloyd`s Bank, Tontine Street, a day or two later and it was subsequently returned from the bank marked “No account”.

In reply to the prisoner, witness said that he was quite sure the prisoner used the words that he was Mr. Barthropp, the racehorse owner and trainer. He had some conversation with Mrs. Chadwick afterwards, and she mentioned the prisoner`s brother`s name. He distinctly saw the prisoner write on the face of the cheque.

Patricia Mary Stephens, aged 11, of 15, St. John`s Street, Folkestone, said she lived with her mother, Mrs. Chadwick. In August last the prisoner was staying at the house. He was her uncle. He gave her a piec of paper, but she did not know what it was. He asked her the name of the place where the boys (her brothers) worked. Her mother, who was present, told him. Prisoner was just going to hand it to her, when her mother said “You had better put it in an envelope”. He did so, and then said “Take this up to Mr. Harbord, and ask if he will change it” He also added “Take care of it, duckie, because it`s a cheque”. She took the envelope with the paper up to her brother, Percy Stephens, at Rego`s, in Church Street.

Samuel Percy Stephens, of 15, St. John`s Street, said he was formerly employed at Rego`s, Church Street, as a porter. He was there in August last, and on the 2^nd of that month his sister came to him with an envelope containing a cheque. He lifted the flap of the envelope and saw that there was a cheque inside. He took it to the office desk, where he saw the manager, Mr. Harbord. He later handed to him £17 10s., which he took home and have to the prisoner. He (witness) said “I hope the cheque is good”, and prisoner said “It`s quite all right”.

Mr. Walter Harbord, manager of the Rego Company, 2, Chirch Street, said that on the 2^nd August he was handed an envelope containing the cheque (produced) by the last witness.

The Clerk said the cheque was for £17 10s. on Barclay`s Bank. The signature was W.H. Harrison, and it was endorsed M. Barthropp.

Witness, continuing, said he paid £17 10s. in Treasury notes to the last witness. He believed it to be absolutely genuine and that it would be met on presentation. He paid it into the Company`s bank, Lloyd`s Bank, Sandgate Road, on the following Tuesday, and he subsequently received it back marked “No Account”.

By the prisoner, witness said when the cheque came back dishonoured he wrote to the prisoner telling him that the cheque had been returned from the bank and that it was a serious matter for him, and would he kindly put it right so that he could put his Company`s account right. He also approached Mrs. Chadwick and paid for a wire to be sent to his address. Prisoner`s brother, the racehorse trainer, wrote to him asking him what the trouble was, and he replied, telling him. He had had no reply since. Had he received the money from the prisoner or his brother that would have been the end of the matter so far as his Company were concerned. He had never met the prisoner before, or seen or heard of him, nor had he seen his handwriting.

By the Clerk, witness said he had already communicated with the police when he wrote to the prisoner`s brother.

In reply to a further question by the prisoner, witness said that he had sent a registered letter to the prisoner after he had communicated with the police.

Detective Constable Southey said at 2 p.m. the previous day he attended Brixton Police Station, where he saw the prisoner detained. He told him he had a warrant for his arrest for obtaining £3 10s. by means of false pretences from Walter Grant, at Folkestone, on the 2^nd August, 1930. He cautioned him and he made no reply. He then brought him to Folkestone where he formally charged him, cautioned him, and he made no reply. Later he was present when the prisoner was charged by Detective Sergeant Rowe with obtaining by false pretences with intent to defraud, the sum of £17 10s., the monies of Walter Harbord. He was cautioned and made no reply.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) asked for a remand for a week in order to get additional evidence.

The Magistrates granted a remand until today (Friday) week.

Prisoner asked for bail.

The Chief Constable said he would oppose the granting of bail. He had had considerable difficulty in finding the man.

Prisoner said he had never moved. He had a wife and three children. He had never slept out of the house.

The Chairman said that bail would not be granted.

Prisoner asked the Bench to reconsider the matter. He was attending hospital for a serious illness, and it was only because of the electrical treatment he had been having that he could walk.

The Magistrates` Clerk said that bail would have to be substantial.

Prisoner: This is a very trivial amount. I don`t know what you call substantial bail. I myself don`t see that there is a case to answer.

The Clerk, after some discussion with the Magistrates, said that on consideration, prisoner would be granted bail.

The Chairman said that bail would be granted, the prisoner himself in £100, and another surety of £100. The sureties were to be to the approval of the Chief Constable.

Folkestone Herald 3-1-1931

Thursday, January 1^st: Before Alderman C.E. Mumford, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mr. W. Smith and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Marcus Barthropp was charged with having on August 2^nd obtained £3 10s. by false pretences from Walter Grant, and on the same date with having obtained £17 10s. from Walter Harbord with intent to defraud.

Walter Grant, licensee of the Mechanics Arms, 37, St. John`s Street, said that Barthropp came into his bar on August 1<sup>st</sup> last. He was with a friend and also a chauffeur. They had drinks and Barthropp asked him if he could put his friends and the chauffeur up for the night, and added that he was staying with his sister-in-law, Mrs. Chadwick, in St. John`s Street. Witness asked him what his business was, and he said “Don`t you know me? I am Mr. Barthropp, the racehorse owner and trainer”. He made arrangements to put the men up and Barthropp then left the bar. On the following day the others had their breakfast and lunch, and Barthropp then came in and settled up in cash. The three men went out together and later on Barthropp returned with his friend. He asked witness for the loan of a pen and ink, which witness provided. He saw Barthropp take a cheque (produced) from his inside coat pocket. He wrote upon it, but witness could not see what he wrote. Barthropp then asked him if he would oblige him by changing the cheque. Witness asked if it was a genuine cheque, and also asked him twice after that if it was quite in order. Barthropp replied “Yes, it is quite in order and will be met”. Witness then handed Barthropp £3 10s. in cash and took the cheque. He could not say whether Barthropp wrote on the back of the cheque but he saw him writing on the face of it.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said that the cheque was on the London and Joint Midland Bank Ltd., Kensington, and dated July 31^st. The name A.M. Barthropp was on it, and £3 10s. in figures, with the signature F.W. Morton.

Continuing, witness said that he did not see the signature F.W. Morton on the front of the cheque as they were busy at the time. He presented it at Lloyd`s Bank, Tontine Street, a day or two later, but it was subsequently returned marked “No Account”.

Cross-examined by Barthropp, witness said that he was positive Barthropp had spoken about his business as a racehorse owner and trainer, and gave his name as Barthropp. Barthropp had not referred in his presence at any time to his brother, but Barthropp`s brother`s name arose in conversation with Mrs. Chadwick. When he discovered from Mrs. Chadwick that the prisoner was not the trainer he said nothing about it, but simply spoke about the cheque.

Barthropp: You told the Bench that you saw me writing on the face of the cheque? – I distinctly saw you writing on the face of the cheque.

Patricia Mary Stephens (11), living at 15, St. John`s Street with her mother, Mrs. Chadwick, said that in August last, Mr. Barthropp, who was her uncle, was staying with them. One day he gave her a piece of paper but she did not know what it was. He asked the name of the place where her brother worked; her mother was there at the time and she told him. He put the piece of paper in an envelope, and then gave it to her and said “Take this up to Mr. Harbord, and ask him if he will change it. Take care of it, duckie, because it`s a cheque”. She took the envelope with the paper in it up to her brother, Percy Stephens, at the Rego shop, in Church Street.

Samuel Percy Stephens, 15, St. John`s Street, said he was formerly employed at the Rego shop in Church Street. He was there in August last, and on August 2<sup>nd</sup> his sister, the last witness, came to him with an envelope which he saw contained a cheque. He took it to the office dest and the manager, Mr. Harbord, was there. He did not see the cheque then. Later Mr. Harbord handed to him £17 10s., and he took it home to 15, St. John`s Street and gave it to Mr. Barthropp. Witness asked him if the cheque was good and he replied that it was quite all right.

The Clerk said that the cheque was headed “Barclay`s Bank”, the name A.M. Barthropp was on it, £17 10s. in figures, and also the signature W.H. Harrison.

Walter Harbord, manager of the Rego Ltd., 2, Church Street, said that on August 2^nd the last witness came to him and handed him an envelope containing a cheque. He looked at the cheque, which was filled up and endorsed, so he paid him £17 10s. The cheque was returned marked “No Account”.

Prisoner: When the cheque came back dishonoured, did you take any action? – I wrote to you telling you that the cheque had been returned from the bank, and it was a serious matter to me, and would you make it good so that I could put my banking account right.

Did you communicate with anybody else? – I also approached Mrs. Chadwick and paid for a wire to be sent to your address.

Did you write to anybody else? – I heard from your brother, who asked what the trouble was about a cheque. I wrote to him and explained the trouble but I have not received any reply. Had I received the money from you or your brother that would have been the endo of the matter so far as my company was concerned.

Did you recognise my handwriting? -  I have never met you before and I have never seen your handwriting.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said that when he wrote to the prisoner`s brother he had already put the matter in the hands of the police.

Prisoner: Had you communicated with them when you sent the registered letter? – I sent the registered letter after I had been in communication with the police.

Detective Constable Southey stated that at 2 p.m. on Wednesday he attended the Brixton Police Station, where he saw the prisoner detained. Prisoner did not reply when formally charged.

An application for a remand until January 9^th was made by the Chief Constable for purposes of calling additional evidence, and this was granted by the Magistrates.

Barthropp asked for bail, but the Chief Constable said that he did not think it should be allowed as they had considerable difficulty in finding the man.

Barthropp: I think that was most uncalled for on the part of the Chief Constable. I have a wife and three children and I have been unable to get out of the house.

The Chairman: Bail is refused.

Barthropp said that he would like to have the last word. He had been attending hospital for a very serious illness. He could hardly walk and was taking electrical treatment.

The Clerk: That is so. Could you put forward substantial bail?

Barthropp: What do you mean by substantial bail?

After reconsideration the Bench decided to grant bail in one surety of a £100 and prisoner himself in a similar sum.

Folkestone Express 17-1-1931

Friday, January 9^th: Before Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, and Mr. W.H. Smith.

Marcus Barthropp, of 81, Clapham Road, London S.W.1, on remand, was charged with obtaining £3 10s. and £17 10s. by false pretences with intent to defraud.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said it had been necessary to call another witness.

Mrs. Mary Chadwick, 15, St. John`s Street, Folkestone, said that the defendant was her brother-in-law. He came to her house on the 1<sup>st</sup> August and asked to be put up for the night. He came down just before nine the next morning and had a little breakfast in the kitchen. He then went out for a walk and came back again. He asked her if she could change a cheque, and she said she could not. He asked her if she dealt with the Co-Op, and she said she did not. He then said “Where are the boys?” and she told him “At the Rego”. He said “A big firm like that would be run by a manager. That would be all right”. Defendant then asked her the name of the manager, and she gave him it. He then took a piece of paper, which she knew was a cheque, and asked for a pen. He got one off the mantelpiece and wrote something on the back of the cheque. He folded it up and asked her daughter to take it up to Mr. Harbord. She said “Don`t you think it would be better to put it in an envelope?” and he did so, putting it in an envelope which was on the mantelpiece. He did not seal it. The girl then took it and went out. When she came back later, she said that Mr. Harbord would send the money with her brother, Percy. She asked the defendant “How much did you send her up for?” and he said “A matter of £17 10s.”. She said “Do you think a man would give a little girl that amount of money?” Some days later she communicated with her brother-in-law by telegram. She subsequently received a letter from him.

The Clerk read the letter, in which it stated that Mrs. Chadwick was to tell the firm who changed the cheque that her boys were innocent of the matter. It was most unfortunate that such a thing should happen. He got several cheques sometimes through racing transactions and one was expected to run risks of getting anything as times were hard in racing. There was one thing she might rest assured about; the matter would be put right in time.

Mrs. Chadwick said she would not like to say that the firm did not take any notice of that because both her boys got “the sack”.

Mr. Sidney Louis Stovkis, first cashier of the Midland Bank, 16, Leonard Place, Kensington, said the cheque produced, purported to be drawn by Mr. F.W. Morton, and dated 31^st July, 1930, was issued with a book of cheques to Mr. Grosvenor Thomas, a customer of the bank. The book was issued on the 8^th January, 1923. Mr. Thomas died about six years ago. On the 31^st July last they had no customer of the name F.W. Morton on the books. The cheque was received at the branch on August 6^th, 1930, and was returned marked “No Account”. The cheque was for £3 10s.

Witness, in reply to the defendant, said it was quite clear that the handwriting on the front of the cheque was different to the endorsement on the back.

Mr. Frank Shipway Lawrence, manager, Barclay`s Bank Ltd., 218, Regent Street, London, said the cheque produced, purported to be drawn by W.H. Harrison and was dated August 1^st, 1930. It was issued to Mr. B. Elen, a customer of the bank, some years ago. They had no customer of the name of W.H. Harrison at the bank. The cheque was received at the bank on August 6^th last and was returned marked “No Account”.

In reply to the defendant, witness said he could not say whether the handwriting on the face of the cheque and the endorsement was the same. He was not called as an expert on handwriting.

Mr. Grant, the licensee of the Mechanics Arms, re-called, said that since the time that he (defendant) had been remanded, he had received the sum of £3 10s. by money order sent on behalf of the prisoner. He received it that morning.

Mr. Harbord, manager of Rego`s, Folkestone, in reply to the defendant, said that that morning he received £17 10s. by money order on behalf of the defendant.

Defendant, in answer to the charge, said that there was no evidence, so far as he could see, produced by the prosecution that he had any knowledge that the cheques in question were not genuine. The evidence showed that full compensation had been made by him, and he submitted that there was no evidence whatever on which he could be justly either sentenced or sent for trial. He was a married man with three children and had lived at the same address for the last six years. He had made no effort to hide or conceal his whereabouts since the transactions.

The Chairman said that the Magistrates considered there was a prima facie case, and defendant would be committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail would be allowed the same as before.

Folkestone Herald 17-1-1931

Local News

The Folkestone Magistrates on Friday of last week committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, to be held on January 17^th, Marcus barthropp, stated to be the brother of a racehorse owner and trainer, who was charged on remand with obtaining by false pretences £17 10s. and £3 10s. During evidence given at the previous hearing, Barthropp, it was alleged, represented himself to be the racehorse owner.

Mary Chadwick, 15, St. John`s Street, the wife of George Thomas Chadwick, said defendant was her brother-in-law. He came to her house on August 1<sup>st</sup> last and asked to be put up for the night. Defendant came down for breakfast the next morning about 9 o`clock. After going for a walk he came back and asked her if she could change a cheque. She said she could not, and then he asked her if she dealt with the Co-Operative Stores. She said she didn`t. He asked where her two sons worked, and she said “At The Rego”. He said a big firm like that would be run by a manager, and she gave defendant Mr. Harbord`s name as the manager. Barthropp then took from his pocket a cheque. He wrote something on the back of the cheque. He then asked witness`s daughter to take it to Mr. Harbord, and she did so. When she returned she said Mr. Harbord would send the money (£17 10s.) by one of witness`s sons. She said to defendant “How much did you send her up for?” He replied “Just a matter of £17 10s.”. Some days later she communicated with defendant by telegram and received a letter in which he said he accepted full responsibility. “It is more than unfortunate that such a thing should have happened”, the letter went on, “and I am more than sorry”. Defendant added that he got several cheques for racing transactions, and one was expected to take risks as one could not afford to refuse them as times were bad on the Turf. He said that he would see what he could do about the reimbursement of the amount, adding that she could rest assured that the matter would be put right in due course.

Sydney Lewis Stoicvis, first cashier at the Midland Bank Ltd., Leonard Place, Kensington, said the cheque produced for £3 10s. was purported to be drawn by F.W. Morton, and dated July 31^st, 1930. The cheque was one of a book issued to Mr. Grosvenor Thomas, a customer of the bank, on January 8^th, 1923. Mr. Thomas died about six years ago. On July 31^st they had no customer of the name of F.W. Morton. The cheque was received at the bank on August 6^th, and returned, as marked, “No Account”.

By defendant: The endorsement of the cheque was quite different to that in the front of the cheque.

Frank Shipway Lawrence, manager of Barclay`s Bank, 208, Regent Street, W., said the cheque produced for £17 10s. purported to be drawn by W.H. Harrison, and was dated August 1^st, 1930. The cheque was issued to Mr. B. Elen,, who had been a customer of the bank some years ago. They had no account in the name of W.H. Harrison at the bank in August last. The cheque was received at the bank on August 6^th and returned marked “No Account”.

By defendant: He could not say whether the handwriting on the front of the cheque was the same as the endorsement.

Mr. Grant, the landlord of the Mechanics Arms, re-called by the defendant for the purpose of cross-examination, said he had received by post the sum of £3 10s. by money order, sent on behalf of the accused.

Mr. Harbord, manager of Rego Ltd., (Folkestone Branch), also re-called by accused, said he had received the sum of £17 10s. by money order that morning.

Barthropp made the following statement to the Bench: There is no evidence, so far as I can see, produced by the prosecution, that I have any knowledge that the cheques in question were not genuine. The evidence shows that full compensation has been made by me, and I submit that there is no evidence whatever on which I can be either justly sentenced or sent for trial. I am a married man with three children and have lived at the same address for the last six years. I have made no effort to hide or conceal my whereabouts since the transaction”.

As stated, Barthropp was committed for trial, bail being allowed in two sums of £100 each.

Folkestone Express 24-1-1931

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, January 24^th: Before Roland Oliver Esq.

Marcus Philip Prescott Barthropp, 53, described as a journalist, of Clapham Road, London, S.W., was charged with obtaining £3 10s. by false pretences from Walter Grant on August 2^nd, and further with obtaining £17 10s. by false pretences from Walter Harbord on the same date. He pleaded Not Guilty to both charges. Mr. L.S. Fletcher (instructed by Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. H.J. Baxter defended.

Mr. Walter Grant, the licensee of the Mechanics Arms, said on August 1^st the prisoner, with two other men, came to his house and ordered some drinks. He asked him also if he could put his two friends up for the night, and he agreed to do so. Barthropp told him he was Mr. Barthropp, the owner of racehorses and trainer of racehorses. He also said he was staying in St. John`s Street with his sister-in-law, Mrs. Chadwick. On the following morning the prisoner came into his house and paid the account, 18s., and he gave a 2s. tip to the girl. In the afternoon he came back with one of the men, who was a chauffeur, and in the course of a conversation Barthropp said “I have hundreds of pounds in my pocket one day and another day I have very little”. He then took out a cheque from his pocket, and he wrote upon it. He then asked him to cash it, and he (witness) enquired if it was a genuine cheque, and he replied “Yes, quite genuine and quite in order”. He gave him £3 10s. for the cheque. He certainly would not have cashed him the cheque had he not believed it was genuine. He paid the cheque into Lloyd`s Bank, and it was returned “No Account”. He did not see the prisoner from August 2^nd until January 1^st when he appeared in the Police Court and was remanded. On January 9^th, when the case was up for a second hearing by the Magistrates, he received a money order for £3 10s. on account of the money paid by him.

Cross-examined, witness said he was certain that the prisoner told him that he was Barthropp, the racehorse owner and trainer. It was not unusual for a man who did a good deal of betting to have sometimes a great sum of money, and on other occasions nothing.

Mrs. Mary Chadwick, of 15, St. John`s Street, Folkestone, said the prisoner was her brother-in-law, and came to her house about half past ten in the evening on August 1^st. She agreed to put him up for the night. On the following morning, after he had had his breakfast, he went out for a walk after borrowing 15s. from her. When he returned he asked her if she could change a cheque. She said she could not. He asked her if he dealt at the Co-Op, and she told him she did not. He then wanted to know where her boys worked, and she said they were employed at Rego in Church Street. He then said “A big place like that would be run by a manager”. She told him Mr. Harbord was the manager. He then asked her daughter to take a cheque up to Mr. Harbord. Several days later, in consequence of what she heard from Mr. Harbord, she sent a wire to the prisoner, but it was not until a week or so after that she got a letter from him in which he stated that her boys were in no way responsible for what had occurred, and the matter would be put right in due course.

Cross-examined, witness said the prisoner married her sister, but she did not know anything about his family at all.

Natalie Stephens, an eleven year old girl, said she lived with her mother at 15, St. John`s Street, Folkestone. On August 2<sup>nd</sup> the prisoner gave her a piece of paper in an envelope to take to Mr. Harbord, and to ask him if he would change it. She went to Messrs. Rego`s shop, and gave the envelope to her brother Percy, who was employed there.

Samuel Percy Stephens said he was employed at the Rego shop in Church Street on August 2^nd. Mr. Harbord was the manager, and when his sister brought an envelope with a cheque inside he took it to Mr. Harbord, who handed him £17 10s. later. He gave the money to the prisoner, but before doing so said “I hope the cheque is all right”, and he replied “It is quite all right”.

Mr. Walter Harbord, Manager for Messrs. Rego, said he changed the cheque which was handed to him by the last witness, to whom he gave £17 10s. The cheque was drawn in the name of W.H. Harrison, and made payable to Mr. Barthropp. He would not have given Stephens the money had he not thought the cheque was genuine. It was returned to him marked “No Account”. On the 9^th January he received a money order for £17 10s., so the money had been refunded to him.

Cross-examined, witness said if the money had been repaid to him he would not have prosecuted the prisoner.

Mr. Sidney Lewis Stokvis, the cashier at the Midland Bank, Kensington, said the cheque produced for the amount of £3 10s., drawn by F.W. Morton in favour of Mr. Barthropp, was dated July 31^st, 1930. The cheque book from which the cheque was taken was issued to Mr. Grosvenor Thomas seven years ago, and he died roughly about six years ago. The Kensington branch of the Bank had no customer of the name of F.W. Morton. The cheque was marked “No Account” and returned.

Mr. F.S. Lawrence, the Manager of the Regent Street branch of Barclay`s Bank, said the cheque on his Bank was purported to be drawn by W.H. Harrison. They had no customer of that name. The cheque was issued to Mr. B. Elen on August 25^th, 1927, but he had been dead several years. The cheque was returned marked “No Account”.

Det. Constable Southey gave evidence of taking taking prisoner in custody at the Brixton Police Station. He said the prisoner made no reply when the warrant was read over to him and when he was later charged with two ofences at the Folkestone Police Station. At no time did he give any account as to where he got either of the cheques.

The prisoner said he did not wish to give evidence or to call any witnesses.

Mr. Baxter, in his address to the jury, pointed out that the prosecution had to prove their case, and he contended that they had not done so.

The jury, after retiring for five minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty.

The Recorder told the jury that he entirely agreed with their verdict.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said the prisoner had admitted a previous conviction of three months for false pretences at the Westminster Police Court on July 27^th, 1927. Barthropp commenced his career of crime in 1903, when he was sentenced to one month for larceny and receiving at North London Sessions. On March 26^th, 1903, he received three months` hard labour at Marlborough Police Court, and later in the year three months at Windsor. He was sentenced to six months and two months consecutively at Brighton, on October 21^st, 1904, for obtaining money by false pretences. Further convictions included eight months at Oxford, twelve months at Wiltshire Assizes, and 18 months at Devonshire Quarter Sessions. The last conviction was in 1916, after which he joined the Army. Barthropp came of a good old Suffolk stock. He was educated at Bradfield College, and was employed with his father in the London Stock Exchange. He served through the Boer War, joining the Rhodesian Rifles, and was taken prisoner. He returned home in 1901, and resided with his parents. In the last War he enlisted in the South Staffordshire Regiment, until demobilised in 1919. He was wounded, and was awarded the Military Medal and bar.

Mr. Baxter said the prisoner had been doing journalistic work recently. He asked the Recorder to show the greatest possible leniency to the prisoner, who had only had one conviction since the War. He was a married man with three children, the eldest of whom was only 10 years of age. It was on account of his financial position that he committed that crime.

The Recorder: Where did the money come from to pay this money back?

Prisoner: A well-known solicitor in London, an officer in the regiment in which I served, gave me £10, and a relative helped me to the extent of £11. I do hope you will give me a chance. I was just getting on and keeping my head above water.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner: I am going to do something which I think is probably wrong. I am so much impressed by your record I am going to take a chance with you. You have been convicted of quite deliberate frauds. You have behind you a career of frauds.

Prisoner: Well I know it, sir.

The Recorder said there were two things which struck him about the prisoner. One was that he was continuously in and out of prison for 13 years until 1916. Then he kept out of trouble for eleven years, during which time he served with honour in the War and was twice decorated for bravery. That impressed him very much, and it convinced him he had good in him. He had in front of him a letter from his wife which impressed him very much, and which he believed. He was not going to ask the prisoner to promise anything, but that was going to be his last chance. He did not see he had had many chances given him. He was going to bind him over for two years to come up for judgement if called upon.

Prisoner: I am very grateful. It is the very first chance I have had.

The Recorder: I am taking your career, your war service, and the fact that the money has been refunded into consideration.

Prisoner: It is not the punishment one has suffered for the offences alone, but what one always suffers through the sentences.

The Recorder: If you disappoint me, you will disappoint me in a great measure.

Folkestone Herald 24-1-1931

Local News

The decision of the Folkestone Recorder (Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C.) to give another chance to a man with 13 convictions was a feature of the trial, at Folkestone Quarter Sessions on Saturday, of Marcus Philip Prescott Barthropp, 53, described as a journalist, who was charged with obtaining from Walter Grant £3 10s. by false pretences, with intent to defraud. He was further indicted with obtaining from Walter Harbord £17 10s. by false pretences, with intent to defraud. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and asked for a dock brief, selecting Mr. Baxter to defend him. Mr. L.S. Fletcher prosecuted.

Walter Grant, the licensee of the Mechanics Arms, said on August 1^st, in the evening, prisoner came into his bar in the company of two other men. They had some drinks and prisoner asked him to put his friends up for the night. He asked accused what he was and he said he was “Mr. Barthropp, the owner and trainer of racehorses”. He added that he was staying at St. John`s Street with his sister-in-law, whom witness knew. On the following day prisoner came in and he paid an account (18s.) for his two friends who had stayed with him for the night. Later prisoner came to the house again. He remarked that one day he had £100 in his pocket and another day very little. He then took out of his pocket the cheque for £3 10s. produced. Barthropp wrote on the cheque and asked witness to cash it. Witness asked if it was genuine and he replied that it was quite in order. He gave accused the money, but when he paid the cheque in it was returned “No Account Leonard Place”. He did not see prisoner again until January 1<sup>st</sup>, when he was before the Court. On January 9<sup>th</sup> re received £3 10s. on prisoner`s behalf.

Cross-examined, witness said he knew Mrs. Chadwick (prisoner`s sister-in-law). Between 9 and 9.30 in the evening he was pretty busy, but he was sure accused said “Don`t you know me? I am Mr. Barthropp, the racehorse owner and trainer”. He did not say “Don`t you know Barthropp, the trainer?”

Mrs. Mary Chadwick, of 15, St. John`s Street, Folkestone, said Barthropp was her brother-in-law. On August 1<sup>st</sup> he asked her to put him up, and she said she would. On the following morning, before going for a walk, he borrowed 15s. from her. When he returned from his walk he asked her if she could change a cheque. She told him she could not. He then asked her if she dealt with the Co-Operative Stores, and when she replied that she did not, asked where her boys worked. She told him they worked at the Rego Company in Church Street. Later Barthropp sent up witness`s little girl with an envelope to the Rego shop. Witness later wired to Barthropp after he had returned to London, and received a letter from him, dated August 11^th, which contained the following; “Only just back here, or you would have heard from me about the cheques. I should like you to tell the firm which cashed it that I accept full responsibility, and your boys have nothing to do with the matter. Your boys were quite innocent parties. It is worse than unfortunate that such a thing should have happened, and I am more than sorry. I get several cheques from time to time for racing transactions, and one has to accept them or risk getting nothing, as in many cases cash is scarce, owing to the bad time prevailing on the Turf. I will see what I can do as regards reimbursing the amount, and I will wire or write you. One thing you may rest assured about. The matter will be put right in due course, and if you will let me know the name of the firm concerned, I will either communicate with them direct at Folkestone, or, if possible, at their London headquarters. I feel very seriously that your boys must be exonerated from any blame in the transaction. I am so sorry it happened”. It was signed Marcus, and was addressed from 81, Clapham Road, London, S.W.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not know Mr. E.P. Barthropp, the trainer. She knew nothing about the family. She saw Barthropp write on the back of the cheque.

In reply to the Recorder, witness said she had met Barthropp altogether about six times. She first knew him about two months before August.

Natalie Stephens, daughter of the last witness, said that on August 2^nd the accused gave her a piece of paper enclosed in an envelope, and asked her to take it up to her brother at the Rego shop. She took the envelope, and gave it to her brother, Percy.

Samuel Percy Stephens said that on August 2^nd his sister brought an envelope with a cheque inside to him. This he gave to Mr. Harbord, the manager, who later handed witness the sum of £17 10s. Witness went home and gave the money to the accused, and said to him “I hope the cheque is all right”. Barthropp replied “It is quite all right”.

Walter Harbord, manager of Rego Ltd., (Folkestone Branch), said that on August 2^nd Stephens, who was employed in the shop, brought him a cheque, and witness later gave him £17 10s., which was the amount the cheque was made out for. It was drawn by W.H. Harrison, and made payable to Marcus Barthropp. He paid the cheque into Lloyd`s Bank on the following Tuesday, and it was subsequently returned to him marked “No Account”. On January 9^th of this year the amount was returned to him.

Sidney Louis Stoicvis, first cashier at the Midland Bank, Leonard Place, Kensington, was shown the cheque dated July 31^st, which the accused gave to Grant. The cheque book from which that cheque was taken, he said, was issued to Mr. Grosvenor Thomas, a customer of the bank, some six or seven years ago. Mr. Thomas died about six years ago. On July 31^st last there was no customer at the bank in the name of F.W. Morton, nor any account in that name. The bank returned the cheque marked “No Account”.

Mr. Baxter: Is there any procedure by which a bank can recall a cheque book when a customer dies? – A cheque book is usually handed in by the next of kin, but as far as we can, we try to recover cheques.

He agreed that if the cheque books were still out after the death of a customer, they would be a great danger to everybody in the community.

Frank Shipway Lawrence, teh manager of Barclay`s Bank Ltd., 208, Regent Street, W., said there was no customer of the name of W.H. Harrison at that bank on August 1^st, nor any account in that name. The cheque book from which the cheque was taken was issued to Mr. B. Ellen on August 25^th, 1927.

Detective Constable Southey said that on December 30^th last he brought the accused from Brixton Prison to Folkestone. When cautioned and charged he made no reply, either at Brixton or at Folkestone.

Mr. Fletcher said Barthropp made the following statement at the Folkestone Police Court before he was committed for trial; There is no evidence, so far as I can see, produced by the prosecution, that I have any knowledge that the cheques in question were not genuine. The evidence shows that full compensation has been made by me, and I submit that there is no evidence whatever on which I can be either justly sentenced or sent for trial. I am a married man with three children and have lived at the same address for the last six years. I have made no effort to hide or conceal my whereabouts since the transaction.

Barthropp did not wish to go into the witness box, and Mr. Baxter then addressed the jury.

Summing up, the Recorder said that any innocent person might come into possession of a cheque that would not be negotiable, although the person who had it thought it would be. But it was unlikely, Mr. Fletcher had said, that one person should get two from two different people on the same day, one out of a cheque book which appeared to have belonged to a person who had been dead for six years. Although those people had not lost any money, and had been paid back, it was no defence for a crime which had been committed. Who Barthropp was, of course, they did not know, because he had not told them; but he did not seem to be such a person as Barthropp, the racehorse owner and trainer.

After retiring, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said Barthropp commenced his career in 1903, when he was sentenced to one month for larceny. He had had 13 convictions, mainly for false pretences and fraud. From 1916 to 1927, however, he had no convictions against him. He came from very good old Suffolk stock, and was born on August 22^nd, 1877. He was educated at Bradfield College, and was employed by his father on the London Stock Exchange for two years. He served through the Boer War, and was taken by the Boers. He returned to England in 1901, and resided with his parents at Windsor. He served in the last War until 1919. He stated that he was wounded, and was the holder of the Military Medal and bar. Since the late War, he had been engaged on journalistic work, and was at present undergoing treatment at the Charing Cross Hospital for peripheral neuritis. In spite of what Barthropp had said about always being at his residence, the London police had attempted over and over again to effect his arrest, but had not succeeded. He was never in. It appeared that he went out very early in the morning, and returned late at night.

Mr. Baxter said Barthropp had received the Military Medal for gallantry in the field. He had a number of letters from officers under whom he served, who stated that they would be pleased to recommend him for a commission. He asked if the Recorder could use the greatest possible leniency in dealing with Barthropp.

The Recorder said he was going to do something which he thought was probably wrong, but he was so much impressed by Barthropp`s record that he would take a chance with him.

Barthropp: You will find I shall not abuse it.

The Recorder said Barthropp had behind him a career of frauds. But there were two things about him which struck him. Barthropp was continuously in and out of prison for 13 years up to 1916, and then he kept out of trouble for 11 whole years, during which time he served with honour in the War and was twice decorated for bravery. That was a thing which impressed him very much, for it convinced him, in spite of Barthropp`s career, that he had good in him. He was probably quite wrong in doing what he was going to do. He had in front of him a letter from Barthropp`s wife, which impressed him, and he was going to give him another chance. That was going to be his last chance. He did not say Barthropp had had any chances given him, but he was going to have one then. He would be bound over for two years.

Asked if he would do as the Recorder asked, Barthropp said “I am very, very grateful to you. It is the first chance I have had”.

The Recorder: If you disappoint me, you will disappoint me in a great measure.

Folkestone Herald 18-8-1934

Local News

The Folkestone Magistrates yesterday (Friday) granted the application of Mr. W.H. Steward, of the Wolf Pack Inn, Goudhurst, for a protection order for the transfer of the licence of the Mechanics Arms, Folkestone.

Folkestone Express 13-10-1934

Local News

The Folkestone Magistrates had before them on Wednesday three applications for the transfer of licences. These were in respect of the Mechanics Arms, 27, St. John`s Street, from Mr. W.W. Grant to Mr. Steward, a retired Metropolitan Police sergeant; the Bouverie Arms, 33, Cheriton Road, from Mr. F.G. Hedges to Mr. H.F. Funnell, a well-known local hairdresser; and the Richmond Tavern, 1, Richmond Street, from Mr. E.J. Jordan to Mr. T.D. Goldsmith, a bus conductor who has resided in the town for some years. The Magistrates granted the application in each case.